The Standard - Thursday, May 23, 1895

THE QUEENSBERRY FRACAS.

The Marquess of Queensberry, 51 of Carter's Hotel, Holborn, and Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, 25, of Chalcott House, Long Ditton, were charged yesterday. at Marlborough-street Police-court with disorderly conduct and fighting.— Mr. Stoneham, solicitor, appeared for Lord P. Douglas ; Lord Queensberry was not represented by counsel.

Police-constable Morrell said about ten minutes past five o'clock on Tuesday night he was on duty in Piccadilly, when his attention was called to a crowd outside Scott's, the hatters, where he saw the Marquess and his son fighting. He separated them a second time, when they both crossed Bond-street, met again outside Stewart's, and re-commenced fighting. He then arrested the Marquess, and his son was arrested by Police-constable 6 C R., and both were taken to Vine-street Sation, where they were charged with disorderly conduct. In answer to the charge, the Marquess said, "That's quite correct."

The Marquess. — I only remember two attacks. I was going away towards my hotel, and my son came after me.

The Constable, cross-examined, said he did not see the commencement of the affray. He heard the Marquess at the station say he would fight his son for 10,000l. The Marquess did not give his name in the street. Witness did not ask who they were. He did not hear the Marquess call his son by an opprobrious name.

Police-constable 6 CR. said he was in company with the last Witness, and saw the Marquess and his son fighting. They were separated, and Lord Queensberry crossed Bond-street towards Albemarle-street, and was followed by Lord P. Douglas. He could not say who was the aggressor, but he believed Lord Douglas struck the Marquess first on the hat. He took Lord P. Douglas to the station, where he said his father had been writing objectionable letters to his (Lord P. Douglas's) wife. He had written to his father on several occasions, asking him to cease writing to his wife, which the Marquess had refused to do, and that was the only remedy he had. This was the cause of the row.

Cross-examined. — He might have said that he took the opportunity, on meeting his father, of asking him to discontinue the letters. Lord P. Douglas did not follow his father across Bond-street. Witness heard the Marquess say at the station that he would fight his son in any part of the country.

Inspector W. Fitt said after the charge was read, the Marquess said — "That is quite right as far as the police are concerned." Pointing to his son, he then added, "That is my son, who bailed Oscar Wilde. He struck me in Piccadilly." Lord P. Douglas said, " Yes. It is through him writing disgusting letters to my wife." They then had some conversation about fighting.

The Marquess said he had just come away in a cab from another Court, and when at the top of St. James's-street saw his son about fifty yards away with another gentleman. He got cut of the cab and approached his son, who came immediately with a run and assaulted him, but did not hit him. He only pushed him against a shop window, at the same time threatening him at the top of his voice. He (the Marquess) struck his son in self-defence.

Mr. Stoneham, for the younger Defendant, said his client and a friend were walking along Piccadilly on Tuesday evening, not thinking in the slightest about Lord Queensberry, when they saw him come across the road from St. James's-street, where he had probably been to write another abusive telegram which he now produced, and which was of a similar nature to the letters which he had written. He had been time after time requested to desist from writing these letters, but although he had given his promise to do so he still continued to send these offensive letters. He had been to Lord P. Douglas's house for no other purpose than to create a disturbance. If on this occasion the Marquess had given The only reason Lord P. Doughs spoke to his father was to get his assurance that the letters should cease. As Lord Queensberry would not give him this assurance, his son continued to ask the question, and so the disturbance arose.

The Marquess said he would like a letter produced which he had written to explain the reason of his visit. He considered his letter was anything but an improper letter.

Charles Thomas Sheriff, of Victoria-road, Holloway, said at 5.30 he was outside Cooper's, No. 15, Piccadilly, when he saw Lord P. Douglas rush with great violence against the Marquess of Queensberry. He did not know at the time who they were. The assault knocked the Marquess's hat off. Lord P. Douglas struck the Marquess with his list, and then there were blows given on both sides. The two constables came and took them to the station. He only saw the one encounter.

The Marquess. — From what you saw whom do you consider the aggressor ?
Witness. — Lord P. Douglas.

Charles Ernest Tyler, of Eland-grove, Lavender-hill, gave similar evidence.

Mr. Stoneham called a gentleman who said he was close to the Burlington Arcade with Lord P. Douglas. The latter said, "Here, is my father: I wish ta speak to him." He walked on to Lord Queensberry and asked him to cease writing letters to his wife. Lord Queensberry made no reply, but made a vulgar noise with his lips. On the question being again put, they came to blows. Witness parted them, and they went towards Bond-street, Lord P. Douglas repeating the question over and over again. When they arrived at the corner of Bond-street they commenced fighting again. A large crowd assembled, and they were parted by two constables. Lord Queensberry went away, and Lord P. Douglas and Witness passed on, and about half-a-dozen steps past Bond-street he saw Lord Queensberry in front. Lord P. Douglas again asked if he would cease writing offensive letters to his wife. Lord Queensberry did not answer, and they began fighting again. Witness got between them again, when the constables came up. One of them said he would have no more of the disturbance, and took them into custody. He heard what was said at the station.

The Marquess objected to the word by which his letters had been described being used in regard to those letters.

Mr. Hannay said though he had permitted much that was irrelevant in the case to be said, he should not say a word more than was necessary to decide the charge, which was that the Defendants had behaved in a disorderly manner in a public street. They would each be bound over in the sum of 500l. to keep the peace for six months.